I read with interest the suggestions made in any proposed collaborative initiative. I may well have
a personal concern with respect to the approach advocated. It is however
only a personal concern and it does recognize the appropriateness of
alternative understandings for those who formulate such intiatives. The following
articulation of the personal concern can therefore readily be set aside as of
no relevance to the proposal as advocated or intended by its proponents. I am interested in:

the adequacy of the proposed initiative after decades of
effort to promote efforts in response to the issue

the adequacy of a solution orientation after
decades of effort to promote a variety of efforts in response to the issue

the way in which appeals are variously formulated
to promote various possibilities, despite the very partial uptake of
any one such appeal

the limited attention capacity in response to any
global initiative and the evident difficulty in eliciting consensus --
even among those with closely related agendas, including progressive
agendas

why the "us and them" framing of which "they" are
accused is to a degree mirrored amongst "us".

the manner in which most of the "progressive" groups see
the challenges of the world as solely determined by the
inappropriateness of the actions of "them", namely if "they" would
only do what "we" want, then all would be well.

why it is assumed that a pattern of activity for
which there is a known track record is considered appropriate to the
challenges of the future -- with no questions asked as to its
appropriateness.

why a response is typically of the form: "these
things take time", "every bit helps", "some are being persuaded", "one must
be positive", and the like -- as with any religion over the centuries.
Is that enough?

why transformational messages seem not to receive
the uptake which their promoters believe they merit -- and why the
promoters do not see this as a call for more profound questioning

A scenario I often recall is of the army (of "us") besieging a citadel
(of "them"). Many attacks have been made by the most creative generals
and heroes (of "ours") to little avail. In fact the increasing
strength of the citadel becomes only too evident. The question is
whether and how we ask the question as to whether it is worth pursuing
future attacks in the same manner, or whether there is a case for new
thinking -- and how that might be engendered. Curiously this scenario
has been played out over the past decade in Afghanistan -- with
general after general claiming to have the skills "to clean up" there.

You can learn as much about a country from its silences as you can from
its
obsessions. The issues politicians do not discuss are as telling and
decisive as those they do. While the government's cuts beggar the
vulnerable
and gut public services, it's time to talk about the turns not taken, the
opportunities foregone: the taxes which could have spared us every turn of
the screw.

In that sense I am interested in:

the silences of the progressive
communities.

the complementarity and interconnectedness of distinct
perspectives on an issue of shared concern -- the "pattern that connects" in the terms of Gregory Bateson. For it
seems to me that it is within such patterning that a context for new
insight can be sustained. More interesting however is why no attempts
are made at such patterning. Discovering the connectivity is left to
the questionable skills of the beholder

I continue to write about these themes -- which intrigue me in a
period of ever increasing pain and chaos. Entropy increase runs rampant

My sense is that:

the significant potential for the future can best
emerge by acknowledgement that past patterns have proven inadequate,
however much they remain credible to many who are engaged by them, or
who could well be engaged by them.

we can usefully face up to the kind of collapse -- of
which many have warned. But rather than indulging in doom-mongering,
or efforts at hope-mongering, I would argue that it is the
transformation of our very way of thinking -- from which these emerge
as alternatives (to be mutually deplored) -- that calls for attention.

It is the self-referential, self-critical approach which I believe to
be lacking among the progressives. But more interesting is why this
dimension is avoided -- a form of denial matching that of which "we"
accuse "them".

I am interested in the existential reality of any individual -- in
this case me -- concerned that everything is getting worse (in the
light of conventional evaluations), despite desperate hope-mongering. A far more radical cognitive approach appears to be called for, if only
for oneself in order to engage meaningfully with a chaotic future.

I accept that the above framing is a poor response to the framing proposed by those inviting participation in a seemingly conventional
response to continuing challenges. I hope that my comments are helpful in some way. I am sure I could
have argued the case otherwise and in a more considerate manner -- but
maybe there is merit in the above as it stands. My apologies for any
offence are necessarily inadequate under the circumstances.

The fundamental issue in response to any argument at this point is: So
what? Who cares? And how do I engage with the alternative case that others
are making -- given my own understanding, which "they" may well frame
as misguided? With what should I engage?

Afterthought: The above framing is not a consequence of lack of sensitivity to the multitude of issues which are variously painful to many constituencies. Nor is it for lack of awareness of the variety of strategies advocated in response. This sensitivity was developed through several decades of involvement with the Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential. This involved the profiling of networks of thousands of "world problems" perceived by international constituencies of every kind -- on which a commentary is provided here. It also involved linking that network to another network of strategies advocated by those constituencies, or criticized by them -- on which a commentary is provided here.